PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

ayrshire_blue said:
But for the same reasons, I don't see how they (sponsors) could be interpreted as being involved in colluding with us and duping the Premier League.

I only asked because the poster I quoted says that we're accused of being in collusion with Nike, Silverlake, Nissan etc. I don't see how that would be the case? Of course this is all caveated with the fact I haven't got a fucking clue, but I'd have thought the allegations if proven are more likely to show that we've falsified books to the Premier League AND the likes of Silverlake, Nike, Nissan rather than have involved them in our conspiracy?
Click to expand...
I suspect its because some of the accusations surround owner funded sponsorship.
In that let's say Etihad sign a contractual agreement to sponsor City for 68 million a year and yet they knowingly only pay 8 million of the full amount.
How can they not be party to such a fraud?
This is in effect what we are accused of. The charge alleges ADUG paid the balance of 2 amounts to be paid.

I mean how fucking stupid would you have to be to not just pay the surplus money into Etihads coffers by some nefarious third hand method and have Etihad pay the lot themselves. Our owners may be many things but stupid is not one of them.

In any event at CAS we have already shown with our accounts receivable in tandem with Etihads accounts payable the contractual amounts were fully met by Etihad alone and UEFA agreed that the sponsorship was not a related party and its value was deemed "fair value" and that Etihad received full value for that sponsorship by the fulfilment of our obligations under that contract. We argued as to why we would fulfill such obligations for nothing when companies were queuing up to be a major sponsor for those amounts.

I'm not quite sure how the PL counter our rebuttal evidence on the basis of purported conduct in a tenuous email with no context. It's also worthy of note that CAS affirmed none of these emails regarding sponsorship amounts payable were external the addressees were all internal.

Plus in addition both sender of the email from City and an Etihad representative gave oral testimony to the veracity of payment arrangements.

The strange aspect of all this being the PL have read the UEFA judgement summary and are aware of all this yet are still pursuing the same line.

The bar to a successful outcome for the PL to prove its case is an extremely high one agreed by all legal advocates yet Bird and Bird persist.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
I suspect its because some of the accusations surround owner funded sponsorship.
In that let's say Etihad sign a contractual agreement to sponsor City for 68 million a year and yet they knowingly only pay 8 million of the full amount.
How can they not be party to such a fraud?
This is in effect what we are accused of. The charge alleges ADUG paid the balance of 2 amounts to be paid.

I mean how fucking stupid would you have to be to not just pay the surplus money into Etihads coffers by some nefarious third hand method and have Etihad pay the lot themselves. Our owners may be many things but stupid is not one of them.

In any event at CAS we have already shown with our accounts receivable in tandem with Etihads accounts payable the contractual amounts were fully met by Etihad alone and UEFA agreed that the sponsorship was not a related party and its value was deemed "fair value" and that Etihad received full value for that sponsorship by the fulfilment of our obligations under that contract. We argued as to why we would fulfill such obligations for nothing when companies were queuing up to be a major sponsor for those amounts.

I'm not quite sure how the PL counter our rebuttal evidence on the basis of purported conduct in a tenuous email with no context. It's also worthy of note that CAS affirmed none of these emails regarding sponsorship amounts payable were external the addressees were all internal.

Plus in addition both sender of the email from City and an Etihad representative gave oral testimony to the veracity of payment arrangements.

The strange aspect of all this being the PL have read the UEFA judgement summary and are aware of all this yet are still pursuing the same line.

The bar to a successful outcome for the PL to prove its case is an extremely high one agreed by all legal advocates yet Bird and Bird persist.
Click to expand...

Not only that, iirc, both Etihad and ADUG proved there were no funds transfers between the two companies in the period in question at CAS.

And not only that, the whole premise is preposterous: that Etihad was so strapped for cash that they couldn't enter into a fair value contract for a few tens of millions of pounds while being funded by one of the richest governments on the planet.

I've said it before, and I will say it again, unless the PL gave some super-hot smoking-gun type of new evidence that we don't know about, there should be no concerns over Etihad at all. Not on the funding, not on the related-party issue, not on the question of fair value. And the chances of such new evidence, imo, are next to zero.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
But for the same reasons, I don't see how they (sponsors) could be interpreted as being involved in colluding with us and duping the Premier League.

I only asked because the poster I quoted says that we're accused of being in collusion with Nike, Silverlake, Nissan etc. I don't see how that would be the case? Of course this is all caveated with the fact I haven't got a fucking clue, but I'd have thought the allegations if proven are more likely to show that we've falsified books to the Premier League AND the likes of Silverlake, Nike, Nissan rather than have involved them in our conspiracy?
Click to expand...

You are partly right. People suggesting other sponsors or investors would have to be complicit are wrong. They would rely on the audited accounts. Which is exactly why accounts have to give a true and fair view - to allow investors and other contracting parties to rely on them. Note that the audited accounts don't have to be "accurate" or have to give a true and fair view for PL regulatory purposes. Just a true and fair view which can be relied on for business decisions (put simply).

On the other hand, the alleged funding of the Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar (if they are looking at that one) sponsorships absolutely allege complicity by the sponsors.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
There's every chance that the Labour bloke will be in no.10 before anything happens with our case...I've not heard anything to suggest his/their thoughts on a regulatory body. It may end up not being an important thing early doors when they see the countries books.

Sorry for a bit of Ben Elton in the thread.
Click to expand...
The Labour Party have fully supported the football independent regulator billIMG_2320.jpeg
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
You are partly right. People suggesting other sponsors or investors would have to be complicit are wrong. They would rely on the audited accounts. Which is exactly why accounts have to give a true and fair view - to allow investors and other contracting parties to rely on them. Note that the audited accounts don't have to be "accurate" or have to give a true and fair view for PL regulatory purposes. Just a true and fair view which can be relied on for business decisions (put simply).

On the other hand, the alleged funding of the Etihad, Etisalat and Aabar (if they are looking at that one) sponsorships absolutely allege complicity by the sponsors.
Click to expand...
And two of those you mention have already given testimony that all the funds to pay sponsorship came from their own resources not Mansour’s. So why are the PL pursuing those?
 
KS55 said:
And two of those you mention have already given testimony that all the funds to pay sponsorship came from their own resources not Mansour’s. So why are the PL pursuing those?
Click to expand...

An excellent question and one for which I still don't have a satisfactory answer 8 months later, other than better evidence (which I think is very unlikely) or a poor process. I suppose we will see.
 
halfcenturyup said:
An excellent question and one for which I still don't have a satisfactory answer 8 months later, other than better evidence (which I think is very unlikely) or a poor process. I suppose we will see.
Click to expand...
In another sphere we would be able to plead Autrefois acquit to many of the charges.
 
KS55 said:
In another sphere we would be able to plead Autrefois acquit to many of the charges.
Click to expand...

Précisement.

I had wondered if they thought they had to carry their investigation through to its conclusion once it had started (i.e. ignoring UEFA/CAS), but I maintain it would have been smarter to wait for the UEFA ruling / CAS settlement before starting the PL investigation, or at least taking the CAS ruling into account in the alleged breaches, but that just brings us back to poor process.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
An excellent question and one for which I still don't have a satisfactory answer 8 months later, other than better evidence (which I think is very unlikely) or a poor process. I suppose we will see.
Click to expand...

In the information vacuum that exists around these charges, and in the absence of any substance from the PL I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a case of us giving too much credibility and credence to our enemy. Gill and Parry et al forced a guilty verdict at the UEFA panel with limited evidence (and that’s being generous) - it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that the same protagonists are driving forward again undeterred by their lack of evidence. As for Bird and Bird…. They’ll just be taking the money…
 
nmc said:
In the information vacuum that exists around these charges, and in the absence of any substance from the PL I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a case of us giving too much credibility and credence to our enemy. Gill and Parry et al forced a guilty verdict at the UEFA panel with limited evidence (and that’s being generous) - it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that the same protagonists are driving forward again undeterred by their lack of evidence. As for Bird and Bird…. They’ll just be taking the money…
Click to expand...

Had this discussion with @petrusha about 6 months ago. Lawyers can only advise their clients what to do. If the client wants to take other action, the lawyers have to go along with it. Or quit (I think that was the gist).
 
This is an interesting article on BBC about LFC's owners. Obviously, it talks about City in several places (usual stuff) but the wider piece is about the problems LFC's owners are having in the States with Boston and over here. In essence they don't want to invest is the general point but when you read it you can't help but see that what they've achieved in the States (controlling the spending of rival owners) is exactly what they've tried here. In the piece it sort of suggests that's gone well in the States but it's a bit of a thorn over here. So I guess the point of what I'm saying is - why haven't other ambitious PL owners spotted this obvious business ploy of 'stop the others spending so that we don't have to!' Owners profiting from clubs is what it's about (and why not they're businesses after all) yet it's those investing that many in our media and rivals claim are wrong!

www.bbc.co.uk

Glory and fury - Liverpool, Boston and a tale of two teams

Owner John Henry has ended title droughts on both sides of the Atlantic, but neither Liverpool or Boston Red Sox fans are entirely happy with the direction he is taking their teams.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
 
Gary James said:
This is an interesting article on BBC about LFC's owners. Obviously, it talks about City in several places (usual stuff) but the wider piece is about the problems LFC's owners are having in the States with Boston and over here. In essence they don't want to invest is the general point but when you read it you can't help but see that what they've achieved in the States (controlling the spending of rival owners) is exactly what they've tried here. In the piece it sort of suggests that's gone well in the States but it's a bit of a thorn over here. So I guess the point of what I'm saying is - why haven't other ambitious PL owners spotted this obvious business ploy of 'stop the others spending so that we don't have to!' Owners profiting from clubs is what it's about (and why not they're businesses after all) yet it's those investing that many in our media and rivals claim are wrong!

www.bbc.co.uk

Glory and fury - Liverpool, Boston and a tale of two teams

Owner John Henry has ended title droughts on both sides of the Atlantic, but neither Liverpool or Boston Red Sox fans are entirely happy with the direction he is taking their teams.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Thought it was interesting that the BBC who mention allegations against City at every opportunity omitted to mention the numerous proven instances of cheating by Fenway Sports teams in MLB.
 
Gary James said:
This is an interesting article on BBC about LFC's owners. Obviously, it talks about City in several places (usual stuff) but the wider piece is about the problems LFC's owners are having in the States with Boston and over here. In essence they don't want to invest is the general point but when you read it you can't help but see that what they've achieved in the States (controlling the spending of rival owners) is exactly what they've tried here. In the piece it sort of suggests that's gone well in the States but it's a bit of a thorn over here. So I guess the point of what I'm saying is - why haven't other ambitious PL owners spotted this obvious business ploy of 'stop the others spending so that we don't have to!' Owners profiting from clubs is what it's about (and why not they're businesses after all) yet it's those investing that many in our media and rivals claim are wrong!

www.bbc.co.uk

Glory and fury - Liverpool, Boston and a tale of two teams

Owner John Henry has ended title droughts on both sides of the Atlantic, but neither Liverpool or Boston Red Sox fans are entirely happy with the direction he is taking their teams.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
What the likes of FSG want is to introduce a strict (stricter) regulatory framework around the PL, such that the oligopolistic structure of the current set of major clubs is protected, allowing the owners to receive stable and of course larger profits.

This would be more consistent with the franchise nature of US sports and FSG would no doubt argue that competition would flourish if spending levels were capped, but as you say the owners would be the only real benefactors here and there would be no real prospect of challenger clubs breaking into the top tier and winning trophies.

This sort of market structure also ignores the fact that the PL and the revenues it generates faces competition from other leagues, something which just isn’t a factor in US sports. I very much doubt that the PL would attract the best players under a tight spending cap environment, particularly given what’s happening in Saudi, and so the quality of the product would diminish over time.

But, clearly, this idea of a poorer product, stifled competition and larger, regulated profits for the owners - a bit like the utility providers in fact - is the vision which our media appears to be buying into.
 
The collective wisdom of BMF appears to suggest there are 129 charges not 115 and these map into 6 issues. I've applied my personal assessment of percentage weight/magnitude below. There's no doubt Ethihad Airways is critical.

Etihad Airways 65%
Etisalat 15%
Aabar 5%
Fordham Image rights 5%
Mancini contract 5%
Non cooperation 5%

How the PL lawyers attempt to reverse the vindication of Ethihad at CAS is baffling. It will have to include irrefutable proof of perjury in the Swiss Court by at least three witnesses.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
The collective wisdom of BMF appears to suggest there are 129 charges not 115 and these map into 6 issues. I've applied my personal assessment of percentage weight/magnitude below. There's no doubt Ethihad Airways is critical.

Etihad Airways 65%
Etisalat 15%
Aabar 5%
Fordham Image rights 5%
Mancini contract 5%
Non cooperation 5%

How the PL lawyers attempt to reverse the vindication of Ethihad at CAS is baffling. It will have to include irrefutable proof of perjury in the Swiss Court by at least three witnesses.
Click to expand...
If the Etihad deal makes up as big a percentage as that then the PL really are beyond stupid. Primarily because of the CAS ruling but also because it's been in the public domain for years where the money came from, and it wasn't ADUG no matter how many times our accusers try and claim it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top